OCR Text |
Show Utah Supreme Court Decisions Supreme Court Calandar For Wednesday, October 15, 1958 OCTOBER SESSION No 4 8820 No 8833 5 6 No No 6 No 6 No 7 Nita S Martinett, Plaintiff & Respondent, v Cecil J Mar tinett, Defendant & Appellant; Second District, John F Wahlquist, Judge; Richards, Alsup & Richards, pltff attys; L G Bingham, deft atty Zelph S Calder, Plaintiff & Appellant, v Ralph Siddoway, Defendant & Respondent; Fourth District, Maurice Harding, Judge; Zelph S Calder, pltff atty; Colton & Hammond, deft attys In the matter of the Estate of Maude K Barlow, deceased, aka Maude K Richards, etc, 'Hoyt Brewster, Appellant; Third District, A H Ellett, Judge; Barclay & Barclay, pltff attys; McKay, Burton, McMillan & Richards, Macoy A McMurray, appellant attys In the matter of .the Estate of Maude Karren Richards, Deceased, Hoyt Brewster, Appellant; Third District, A H Ellett, Judge; Barclay & Barclay, attys; McKay, Burton, McMillan & Richards, Macoy A McMurray, appellant 8682 8683 attys. No 8 8794 No 9 8815 Cotro-Mane- & s o 12 8856 Lester A. Wade, Justice Geo. W. Worthen, Justice F. Henri Henriod, Justice 1. 110 Utah 245, 171 P. 2nd 667, 7, decided, under Sec. U. C. A. 1943, which, insofar as material here is the same as Rule 4 (j), U. R. C. P. 104-5-- YOUR LEGALS When They Can Run & in Ronnow, Dan S Bushnell, pltff as a mere irregularity. Rule 61, deft atty U. R. C. P. is cited, which directs: For Friday, October 17, 1958 Gary Wood, Plaintiff ANY DAY OF THE WEEK Cotro-Manc- s, Respondent, v Darrell Taylor, Defendant Appellant; Second District, Parley E Nor-setJudge; Patterson & Kunz, pltff attys; Kipp & Char-lie- r, Simmons, Beaslin & Nygaard, deft attys Finley F Wilkinson, Harold N Wilkinson and H H Wilkinson, Plaintiffs & Respondents, v Carlos Wood, De- -. fendant & Appellant; Second District, John F Wahlquist, Judge; George Fadel, pltffs atty; Barclay & Barclay, & & 8832 J. Allan Crockett, Justice Don't Wait Until Friday To Run officer, Ed Cassity, Plaintiff & Appellant, v J J Castagno, It is urged that the omission of fendant & Respondent; Third District; R L Tuckett, the date was inconsequenital; that Judge; Milton A Oman, pltff atty; Franklin Riter, deft the defendant had not been misled; that he had ample opportunity to atty Meredith Page and Maurine S Page, Plaintiffs & Re- appear and defend; that consespondents, v Federal Security Insurance Company, De- quently the failure to place the fendants & Appellants; Third District, Martin M Larson, date thereon should (be regarded October Session 11 WE CONCUR: . De- attys; 8818 contention that the defendant has the burden to allege and prove that he was misled by the defect The trial court properly granted the motion to quash. Affirmed. Costs to respondent. attys Judge; Romney, Boyer No 'The date endorsed indicates the time within which date on the served copy of a summons, the .Court said: Molen Rees, defendant must appear. If Plaintiff and Appellant, the date is not endorsed Ithe v. defendant would have no deEdward B. Scott, finite rate fixed by the sumDefendant and Respondent. mons to appear. The court there explained the No. 8860 essentiality of the date, particularly where the aation is commenced by the serve of summons McDonough; chief jusice: and is required to the This appeal challenges an order be filed complaint within (ten days theregranting a motion to quash sum- after We see no merit in the mons on the ground that (the deputy sheriff who serverd it failed to put the date on the copy he left with the defendant. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF T1IE STATE OF UTAH Sheldon R Brewster, Audrey B Bell, Hoyt Brewster, Kyle H Brewster, and Lael B Egge, Plaintiffs & Respondents, v William Barlow and William Barlow, Executor of the Rule 4 (J) U. R. C. P. prescribLast Will & Testament of Maude K Barlow, aka Maude Karren Richards, deceased, Defendants & Appellants; ing the manner of service of (sumThird District, A if Ellett, Judge; Wilford M Burton, mons provides: pltffs atty; Barclay & Barclay, defts attys At the time of service the For Thursday, October 17, 1958 person making such service OCTOBER SESSION shall endorse upon the copy 8754 State of Utah, by and through its Road Commission, of the summons left for the Plaintiff & Appellant, v Denver & Rio Grande Western person being served, the date Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant upon which the same was & Respondent; Third District, Stewart M Hanson, Judge; served, and shall sign his E R Callister, Jr, Walter L Budge, Wallace B Kelly, pltff name thereto, and, if an attys; Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, deft add his official title. 8825 ' No 10 Wednesday, October 15, 1958 THE DAILY RECORD Page 4 h, deft attys Lydia G Ivie, Plaintiff & Respondent, v Dennis Waring Richardson, Defendant & Appellant; Third District, Ray Van Cott, Judge; Gordon I Hyde, pltff atty; Ray, Quin-ne- y & Nebeker, Marvin J Bertoch, deft attys . The court at every stage of the proceedings must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The above rule is salutary where applicable. But it cannot be used as a catch-a- ll to cover up defects, errors, or omissions upon which the rights and duties of adverse parties depend. In Thomas v. District Court, 1 contentions similar to the above were made. In referring to the omission of Ithe endorsement of the Businessman . . . YOUR HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER IS HIS DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH YOU! In the newspaper the businessman can show you m detail what he sells, why you need His product, or services, how much it costs, and where to come to buy it. With the newspaper way oi showing you his wares he saves you precious shopping time by letting you decide betore you go to town what you want to buy What's more, you can clip the ads and take them with you to remind you to take advantage of the bargains you read about. SHOP THE STORES THAT ADVERTISE IN YOUR HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER1 .. Wfpymv I .;. v 'szzr.; PRESS ASSOCIATION VN.M. .J 34 WIST ROADWAY SAIT IAKI CITY, UTAH W |